What to do with BenTucker?

Leave him be, he represents valuable opposition

11 (28.2%)

Don't respond to his posts, because it gets us nowhere

9 (23.1%)

Put him on ignore, to reduce the signal-to-noise ratio

7 (17.9%)

Make his life miserable, God knows he's done it to us

4 (10.3%)

Petition Ian and Mark to ban him, he is basically a spammer

3 (7.7%)

Hunt him down and kill him, he's compelled us to labor for our existence for too damn long!!

5 (12.8%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[goten1201]

Why not just go to NH and visit him?  He lives less than an hour drive from where the New Hampshire Liberty Forum will be held.

Thanks but no thanks. I'll be going to the Liberty Forum and skipping Mr. BT's home, fun though that might be. 

Are you kidding, I'm gonna camp on his lawn. Payback's a bitch.

That would be a great way to prove his argument wrong when he comes out to kick you off of it.

I have exclusive use because I do pay my economic rent...

He pay's his "fair share" doesn't he?.........

[gandhi2]

I have exclusive use because I do pay my economic rent...

To whom and how much?

[BenTucker]

to the local government...20/1000 and my house is worth $500K so $10K.

[gandhi2]

Oh, rich too.  So why is your privileged ass whining after how we all owe shit to the poor?

I also own a house.  I also pay my property tax.  I think that neither you or I should have to.

[One two three]

Oh, rich too.  So why is your privileged ass whining after how we all owe shit to the poor?

A lot of rich white kids are like that.  Ben just never grew up.  I wanna be young forever too but Ben is going about it the wrong way.

[BenTucker]

So why is your privileged ass whining after how we all owe shit to the poor?

I don't think I have ever refered to owing the "poor" anything...I believe in the principle of EQUAL liberty based on the absolute right of self-ownership - this requires the sharing of economic rent between me and all of my neighbors ("rich" and "poor") as compensation from being excluded from what is rightfully mine to have an equal access right to occupy and thus to uphold my absolute right of self-ownership.

I also own a house.  I also pay my property tax.  I think that neither you or I should have to.

good for you...but my point is that you and others are somehow deluded into thinking that in a capitalist anarchy either everyone will be equally free to pursue getting "rich" or that you have to trade-off equality and freedom that then makes "rich" or "poor".

and I am here to tell you that exclusive use of land beyond Locke's proviso EVEN IN ANARCHY violates the absolute property rights we all have to ourselves.

this is an irrefutable fact based on simple logic and I understand why you would want to try and attack it as it leads to some very uncomfortable conclusions about your own current ideology.

[BenTucker]

Oh, rich too.  So why is your privileged ass whining after how we all owe shit to the poor?

A lot of rich white kids are like that.  Ben just never grew up.  I wanna be young forever too but Ben is going about it the wrong way.

I'll get back to you later...I gota run out to my personal trainer session.

[ladyattis]

Ben, I pointed out before no one is ever equal. You won't be equal to Einstein or Michael Jordan. Or equal to John Locke or Thomas Aquinas. And etc. Equality is impossible. Equal treatment is also impossible due to that everyone has different wants and needs and dreams. To demand a one size fits all equitibility is IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO THOSE FACTS. GET OVER IT.

[BenTucker]

Ben, I pointed out before no one is ever equal. You won't be equal to Einstein or Michael Jordan. Or equal to John Locke or Thomas Aquinas. And etc. Equality is impossible. Equal treatment is also impossible due to that everyone has different wants and needs and dreams. To demand a one size fits all equitibility is IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO THOSE FACTS. GET OVER IT.

everyone's subjective version of the pursuit of happiness is equally valid.
everyone has the human capacity to act equally moral and thus are treated equal in the eyes of the law.

privilege (private law) is treating one subset of the whole unequal in the eyes of the law as the excluded's equal liberty rights are infringed upon without compensation.

[gandhi2]

and I am here to tell you that exclusive use of land beyond Locke's proviso EVEN IN ANARCHY violates the absolute property rights we all have to ourselves.

And I am here to tell you exactly how full of shit you are.  Not for your benefit, really, but for everyone else's.  First you define property rights to self however you please.  Then you claim that exclusion is force, the same punishable offense as pushing a man into a lake.  You just keep making a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You define things however you want, despite serious refutations and disagreements on meanings of these things, and once you have restructured the definitions, you point to how clear the logic is.  It's complete ass-buggery, lad.

this is an irrefutable fact based on simple logic and I understand why you would want to try and attack it as it leads to some very uncomfortable conclusions about your own current ideology.

It's not irrefutable.  You just misunderstand and misinterpret what certain things mean, so that it fits your logic.  And I swear to God the Holy, Ben, when your privileged white ass comes knocking on my doorstep, demanding how I have to even the odds that fate and nature dealt to me, I will resist with force, even if one or both of us die as a result.  I would rather die free than live by anybody else's terms.  You may argue the morality of it from here to breakfast, but I can assure you, there will come a day when the philosophy of force, as a necessary evil in every day life, is no longer tolerated.  On that day, the forcers and the forcees will meet to settle the score.  On that day, humanity will live forever or die abruptly.

The true test of morals is time.  Force cannot survive time.

[Brian Wolf]

.but my point is that you and others are somehow deluded into thinking that in a capitalist anarchy either everyone will be equally free to pursue getting "rich" or that you have to trade-off equality and freedom that then makes "rich" or "poor".

I love all of the different 'forms' of Anarchy. Anarcho this and that.

Anarchy is freaking anarchy people. It means that there is no government, therefore no one is going to be around to force any set of ideals upon us capitalist or otherwise.

In a anarchy Ben can start a tribe of Socialists and they can pay each other economic rent all day, Gandhi can start a tribe of Capitalists and they can buy stuff from each other all day, and I can start a tribe of People and we can be human all day.

Let's say that does happen Ben. What would be your problem with that? Would your tribe come knocking on my tribes door and demand your economic rent from us? Your tribe would be disappointed if they did. Because my tribe would not pay it. And I doubt that many other tribes would be willing to pay it either. It seems to me that if you have your own tribal territory then you would not be denied access to land and therefore my tribe would owe you nothing even under your own rules because there is enough 'as good' or whatever its called.

If your tribe came into my tribes territory and forced us to pay, then it would no longer be an anarchy, we would be living under your government.

[gandhi2]

Let's say that does happen Ben. What would be your problem with that? Would your tribe come knocking on my tribes door and demand your economic rent from us? Your tribe would be disappointed if they did. Because my tribe would not pay it. And I doubt that many other tribes would be willing to pay it either. It seems to me that if you have your own tribal territory then you would not be denied access to land and therefore my tribe would owe you nothing even under your own rules because there is enough 'as good' or whatever its called.

Ah, clarity!

SOMEBODY gets what I'm talking about.  I don't want to abide your damned social contract, you don't get to force it onto me.  There's a difference between allowing exclusive privilege to an individual, and leaving a "tribe" alone because to intervene would be to use force.  You are not allowing "privilege," simply because to enact war is to violate the fundamental human/rational tenet: choice.

And Brian is plain right.  If you would fore my tribe/community/family to follow your rules, then you are imposing your government on me.  It's just not anarchy anymore.  SOMEBODY had to grant you exclusive authority of force, but it wasn't me, so for you to use it on me is just as much of a raw deal as any other system of government.  I ask you:

"If authority must be legitimate, doesn't that mean that I must recognize it as a viable authority?"

If I hire a third party arbitrator, and then go to my defendant and tell him that this is what we have to use, is the defendant truly represented?  Unless both parties accept the arbitrator, then the authority of the arbitrator is illegitimate.

[ladyattis]

everyone's subjective version of the pursuit of happiness is equally valid.

So a psychopath's joy in killing others is valid?

everyone has the human capacity to act equally moral and thus are treated equal in the eyes of the law.

Then why do we have people who are not morally competent to stand trial? They often are found to be called 'criminally insane.'

privilege (private law) is treating one subset of the whole unequal in the eyes of the law as the excluded's equal liberty rights are infringed upon without compensation.

Nope, because you are not equal to anyone else. Get over it.

-- Bridget

[BenTucker]

First you define property rights to self however you please.

the whole classical liberal enlightenment project defines their fundamental tenet as some version of the right of self-ownership...

Then you claim that exclusion is force, the same punishable offense as pushing a man into a lake.

exclusion is force beyond Locke's proviso as it compels those you exclude to labor for what defines their very existence...it would be akin to being able to suck all of the air from around the body of another except the force manifests itself in a legal and monetary obliagtion that you are forced to pay rather  than in the death of another.

And I swear to God the Holy, Ben, when your privileged white ass comes knocking on my doorstep, demanding how I have to even the odds that fate and nature dealt to me, I will resist with force, even if one or both of us die as a result.  I would rather die free than live by anybody else's terms.  You may argue the morality of it from here to breakfast, but I can assure you, there will come a day when the philosophy of force, as a necessary evil in every day life, is no longer tolerated.  On that day, the forcers and the forcees will meet to settle the score.  On that day, humanity will live forever or die abruptly.

The true test of morals is time.  Force cannot survive time.

force is neither good nor bad - it depends on what ends it serves.
the obligation forced on those being excluded by your use of land beyond Locke's proviso justifies the use of governance as legitimate agency's FORCE in defense of the absolute right of self-ownership.

[BenTucker]

Anarchy is freaking anarchy people. It means that there is no government, therefore no one is going to be around to force any set of ideals upon us capitalist or otherwise.

historically anarchy has meant the absence of illegitimate authority and that inlcudes not only the state but all social and cultural institutions with hierarchy...

If your tribe came into my tribes territory and forced us to pay, then it would no longer be an anarchy, we would be living under your government.

I am a Nockian/Jeffersonian anarchist - local governance as legitimate authority is constituted to protect life, liberty and LABOR-based property where people understand that labor-based property rights are STRENGTHENED by voluntarily sharing the economic rent as an obligation to those you excluded for the benefit of the privilege that you receive for enforcing your exclusive title.